(Newser)
–
A May poll of 500 registered Utah voters found 68% of them hadn't heard about the Bears Ears proposal—an effort by members of five Native American tribes to preserve 1.9 million acres of ancestral land in southern Utah. Should you count yourself in the know-nothing group, a primer on the contentious proposal and the latest developments:

First, from the horse's mouth, an explainer of what the tribes are seeking: The Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition wants the land—"a place where tribal traditional leaders and medicine people go to conduct ceremonies, collect herbs ... and practice healing rituals stemming from time immemorial"—designated a national monument. It notes the land is federally owned and jointly managed by the Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, and National Park Service.

In a January op-ed in support of the effort, Bruce Babbitt at the Los Angeles Times points out that the Navajo, Hopi, Ute, and Zuni tribal members "are not demanding return" of the land, but they want it protected from off-road vehicles and looters of archaeological sites, as well as want access granted to them, something "miners and ranchers have at times denied."

Babbitt explains that after five years of talks on the local level went nowhere, the tribes in October asked President Obama to use the power granted to him under the 1906 Antiquities Act to make the land a national monument (and a novel one at that, which Babbitt explains here).

Utah Public Radio reports Utah Gov. Gary Herbert and Sen. Orinn Hatch are opposed to the plan, as are the state Senate and House of Representatives, which in mid-May "overwhelmingly passed" this legislation.

The Washington Post provides some context: "In a state where the federal government owns 65% of the land, many conservatives already resent existing restrictions because they bar development that could generate additional revenue."

It's not just the legislature in opposition. The Salt Lake Tribune reports some Navajos oppose the plan, saying the designation would actually compromise their ability to use the land. The coalition says that's not so.

And then things get weird: The Guardian reports forged letters purporting to be from Interior Secretary Sally Jewell have been tacked up at places like gas stations in tribal lands. The fliers claim the government intends to shrink the size of the Navajo reservation by 4 million acres.

The Post notes that some Utah lawmakers have suggested that if Obama makes the designation, an armed conflict like the Malheur one could arise.

JustAmere SourKaustic perception: Using the power of eminent domain, For every foot of western land the government takes. An equal amount of land, using same or similar reasons, should be taken from lands in the East.

Jean_Gale

Jun 7, 2016 8:31 AM CDT

Some people are commenting without reading the article or the links. The land is federal now. No private land is involved. While Gov Herbert and a number of Utah politicians who have received tons of funding from the oil industry are against the Monument designation, more money is generated for local economies from the area being designated as a Monument than for the area to be drilled for a small amount of oil. As our population grows, our open areas are increasingly paved over and private land that was once accessible becomes plastered with no trespassing signs. Idaho has sold off 41% of its state public lands into private no trespassing hands. This is a win win proposal - better for the economy and better for our hearts.

billy b

Jun 6, 2016 8:25 PM CDT

The gov't steals land legally. My families land was taken over by Park Service.